Obama and the Courage of our Convictions

A year or so ago I wrote a book entitled The Courage of Our Convictions. It urged Democratic leaders to restate the principles that guided the party successfully through the age of Roosevelt (1932-1968): commitment to national community, security alliances, citizen obligation, and equality and justice. Only when our principles are clear can voters know who we are and identify with us and can we develop persuasive and effective policies,and programs. Principles, policies, programs.

The Iowa caucus results seem to support this ideal. Senator Obama is a man of principle. He is committed to restoring a sense of national community to America. He believes in restoring our security alliances through active diplomacy and engaging those who disagree with us in constructive dialogue. He restates the requirement that we all give something back to America, to become engaged in the public arena, in the national interest. And, most important, he is the walking embodiment of equality and justice.

Already the Obama candidacy has sent a powerful message around a watching world: The torch has been passed to a new generation of American leaders, and we don't care what color it is.

As one who has struggled throughout a lifetime for restoration of idealism to American politics, I can only smile, and perhaps shed a tear of happiness, that our time may have come.

This is a new day in America. Let's call it hope.

Comments

[OhgReaTone]

Not just courage of conviction - but what conviction. Bush says, "you are with us or against us" and he stands by his convictions - "Dead or alive." That is not good enough. What are the convictions of the candidates and how will they present us to the global community.
Ohg.
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/01/06/representing-us-to-the-world/

[MartinEdwinAndersen]

Senator Clinton denigrated the importance of speech in a democracy in last night's debate in New Hampshire. But she should remember this ...

When Cicero finished speaking, the people said, “My, how well he spoke.” When Demosthenes finished speaking the people said, “Let us march!”

Candidates should strive to emulate Demosthenes.

[WillBFair]

I disagree, and I'm sad that Hillary seems to be loosing. The Clintons have a wonderful governing record. Especially now, we need the very best people in office.
Like Obama and many academics, Hart speaks in generalities: man of pinciples, idealism, national community, constructive dialoge, etc... High falutin abstractions like those are a waste of time.
I can trust the Clintons always to move policy as far as possible in the liberal direction. And they deserve the job. They went through hell the last time around and still were able to give us brilliant strategies. I disagreed with them on a few issues, but for the most part their decisions were much smarter than my freinds or I could have made.

[DavidE]

I think the best way to get change in Washington is with a strong 3rd party to shake up the system. The current two parties have been fighting for so long that they would rather score points against each other than to solve the country's problems. I wonder if Obama will be so eager for unity after his health care plan is demagogued and filibustered by the Republicans in the Senate.

[CSE]

Hope and change? The tear you shed?

Then explain the advisors surrounding Obama..

Vote for Change? Atrocity-Linked U.S. Officials Advising Democratic, GOP Presidential Frontrunners

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/3/vote_for_change_atrocity_linked_us

...then take a peek at the remainder.

[poopdeck]

Not one of the self-appointed presidential "change candidates" seems to understand that the only significant change that they can bring about as president is promoting the restoration of balance between the three branches of government. The executive needs to be cut down a notch or two. I do not believe that any of the wannabes, when elected, will voluntarily give up any presidential power arrogated by Bush & Co. That has never happened. Hence it is up to the other branches, especially the Supreme Court, and us, the public, to ensure that the restoration of balance is encoded in law. The "change" advocated by the current presidential wannabes is cubic miles of hot air from modern-day Pied Pipers of Washingt

[ECJLA]

In 1984-85 the editors of the NY Times published two letters I wrote stating that your campaign of "new ideas" constituted a compelling political initiative akin to the British Social Democratic party against one set of politicians "who did not care" (Republicans) and another set of pols "who did not dare" (Democrats). Is Barack Obama really a rightful inheritor of your mantle?

In the interim 24 years the party that "does not care" has become much stronger now than they were in 1984. Even then, Reagan was quoted personally shortly after you emerged saying, in effect, "bring it on." We never got to run the experiment of whether a Hartian politics of, in sum, mobilized enlightenment, constituted an irresistable force capable of overcoming the immovable object of financial elite supremicism that is Reaganism.

Today, a "new ideas" candidacy would require a supplementary bracing class based "j'accuse" against the right-wing to have a chance of winning a general election. (This is self-evident in light of Bush’s popular vote victory in 2004.) Obama appears over his head, incapable of sharpening a class warfare message and "biting the donor class" hand that feeds him. Indeed, his whole political persona is based on not doing so, and a belief that such politics is unproductively divisive. He is therefore unelectable in my view.

As for the party that "does not dare", while that is more true than ever of mainstream Dems and their fearful leader, Hillary Clinton, it is demonstrably not true of John Edwards. Edwards clearly promises to give the Dems the edge (and frankly balls) they need to do the job social democratic parties have done throughout history – keep capitalism from running amok and devolving into dictatorial plutocracy. Edwards' class conflict message ensures he will be able to hold his own in the political trench warfare with the right-wing that is sure to come in the general election. Respectfully, Senator, John Edwards is the candidate most in the mold of the Gary Hart of 1984 and beyond.

Eric C. Jacobson
Public Interest Lawyer
Culver City, California

[themainpoint]

There is nobody I know who cares about the color or sex of the next President.

But I know plenty of people who think that Obama's inspirational words will not resolve problems like healthcare, foreign policy and global warming.

Edwards is the only candidate who has made reducing the power of special interests the central theme of his campaign. He's honest to do that because the other candidates can make any promises they like, but nothing will change until the power of special interests is reduced.

Obama says "there has been too much anger in Washington­." That's just slick talk and untrue. The reps in Washington haven't been fighting for anything. They just roll over whenever a powerful lobby tells them what to do without giving a thought to the effect it will have on the American people and the future of this country.

Constructively directed frustration is the only thing that has ever changed anything in this country.

Edwards wants to unify the American people and harness their frustrations in a way that will create positive change.

Obama wants to play it safe and make Edwards look bad for telling the truth and being strait with the people.

We get the government we deserve. Time will tell whether the voters are wiser this time around---or whether they are going to outsource their thinking to the media and brilliant talkers like Obama.

[bacaangel]

Most of the mass of people see beyond Barack's color as his Soul shines forth (that shaft of light) penetrating and speaking to our hearts, to the best in each of us.

The change Barack is inspiring us to make is in building a "People Coalition" which in turn will be the catalyst for the emerging of a new era in American history, an era of unity and not division, which can tap that awesome seed to put power back into the people's hands, where it belongs. For only the people, as a group untiy, can truly know what is in their best interest and make the changes, that is the only way true change can be made. Barack Obama, is asking us to forget our petty differences and prejudices, as change, though attempted, cannot be made if there is not unity but only bickering and divsion.

We know innately that United we stand and Divided we Fall. Barack's ask us to unie in a Common Cause -- And, this is our time, this is our calling!

[Purple Girl]

I like Obama- have since his speech in'04- said 'He's going somewhere and I think I'll want to follow'
Always liked Hillary (Bill supporter thru & thru), thought it would be a 'no brainer' when she announced.
Like John Edwards, seems like a honest good hearted and smart guy.
Unfortunately their votes in the senate (ones I screamed about at the time they made them) have knocked them out of contention for me.
They were either complicite or incompetent. Who could not see the writing on the Wall on where this admin was headed? OIL-Black Gold Texas Tea- control it and you have the world by the balls.And if they didn't out an out sleep walk behind the admin, they did behind everything the media spewed. Obama was doing well until he considered what Hillary was doing and decided she knew better, since there has been no doubt she would run for Pres. Calculating- but using the wrong figures.
And not one of these touching the War crimes and Constitutional violations this admin has committed. My first order of business would be to hire mass Independent Coucils to investigate this admin from '99 on (and some as far back as the first time the stepped foot in DC). I'd also add the multinational corps and their 'Dealings' in the ME. Connecting the dots to this 40 yr consipracy agaisnt US and the rest of mankind!The Buck started Here.

[HearNoWeasel]

To me, the big Iowa winner is the MSM and whoever pulls their strings. Their relentless campaign to annoint 3 out of 8 Democrats as "viable" - the three with the most advertising Dollars - has paid off. Iowa voters affirmed the preapproved candidates and now the media can continue without challenge to ignore anyone else.

What's noteworthy is that 97% of votes went to the media-approved candidates, not that Obama received a few more points than the other two. Had Iowa stood up for Biden, Richardson, Kucinich, Dodd, or Gravel, we would have a true news story: a far more democratic and engaging race going forward. Instead, Iowa Democrats voted in lockstep with the MSM and as a result, 49 of 50 states have already lost two qualified candidates.

Those were not qualified candidates, you say, because they polled too low? I claim that had Biden or Dodd raised a ton of money instead of Obama, the media would have MADE them qualified. Obama, a first-term Senator with little money would have been ignored as a 2nd tier candidate. Without any press build-up, nobody would have taken his "hope" message seriously, except for a few "fringe" supporters.

The presidential campaign has been high-jacked away from the people, and that makes me feel anything but hope.

[LoRiseAntlers]

Screw idealism,hope,and all that other tripe.I want an electable candidate in the general election.O­bama's not that candidate and neither is Clinton.If you don't think the GOP and the MSM won;t have a field day with either of these two,you are an idiot Mr.Hart.Jo­hn Edwards is the only viable candidate left.We should all get behind him.

It's time to take country away from the theocrats and corporatists who control it.The times call for ruthlessness,not idealism,action,not hope.

The left must save America from itself.Whe­n that is accomplish­ed,mr.Hart­,we can return to your idealism and hope.Until then,we must fight tooth and nail for Liberty,no matter how dirty the tactics.

[BillMcKern]

The same Gary Hart who just a week ago wanted to run a third party independent candidate because none of the major party candidates was sufficiently centrist and believing in "unity" (Republicans get everything they want, while Democrats get nothing, because Republicans don't negotiate) is now singing the praises of one of the major party candidates.

Apparently whatever traits Hart possesses, consistency and integrity are not included.

Romneyian is the only word that fits.

[EdwardHeadington]

Thanks for another interesting and heartfelt blog Senator. Indeed that time may have come.

[LeoMarvin]

I'd love to see an Obama-Bloomberg ticket. Two smart, capable guys, one African-American, the other a Jew. And if that means we lose every southern state, fine. Ron Paul may be insane to say Abraham Lincoln was wrong to fight the Civil War, but that doesn't mean we have to keep fighting it over and over again. This time I say show the Confederacy the door.